Why is the definition of a woman so confusing these days?

[Fairenuff]

I know it's probably been done to death but it used to be so simple.

There were men and women. All kinds of different people but two sexes.

But now no-one can define what a woman is.

We know it's not clothes, hair or make-up
We're being told it's not having a vagina, periods or child bearing
It's nothing to do with the male/female brain

So what is it? Is it purely down to chromosones?

And if it is, how can people without female chromosones still say that they are a woman?

Forgive me Ekphrasis but we still have words, do we not? We can still make ourselves understood, we can still express any distinctions we deem necessary, we're not losing that by expanding upon our definition of the word "woman" - are we?

Rat, it's clearly lost in much of the press and general population. If i'd heard or read much of this a couple of years ago I'd have been very confused as to what things actually meant, who was what, what did a TW actually mean.

I had no idea of the wider political and economic issues associated with my sex till I fulfilled my sex's purpose and had children and experienced the difference between my experiences, fellow mothers and those of my husband's becoming a father.

Semantics really matter in so many situations and all these words around this area have double meanings. IW said she was a 'real woman' - what it's real? What is truth? History has shown us that truth is in the eye of the recorder who is able to then bend it and change it at will.

I like the way some people pretend that they don't actually know what man / woman / boy / girl / male / female mean.

99.999999% of the population know exactly what it means.

We have never had to give a precise definition because it has been the fundamental, first noticed, highly important for us as animals, categorisation.

We are mammals. All mammals know what male and what female is - they don't need words, it is a concept that goes back for as long as we've existed.

Anyone who says they struggle to understand what boy / girl means is telling whoppers.

'Trans' is fine and why not? It indicates the difference in life experience, medical difference and prejudice they experience. I'm not being prejudiced by saying I am a woman and they are transwomen. Why can't trans be celebrated?

And it's about redefinition and muddying.

If you see a bunch of kids running around with no clothes on, you know which are girls and which are boys. Obviously.

These people say, no there is no way of telling, you would have to ask them all.

Clearly when talking about issues that affect say girls, as a group, in a certain country, like menstruation and education. You can't actually go and ask every girl whether they identify as a girl or not. Therefore, you cannot make statements like "girls in X country are routinely removed from education when they start their periods". You lose precision. You refer instead to menstruators, but how does the group of menstruators relate to this other group who are married off very young, that we are calling "young people at risk of child marriage" and is there any intersection with the group who are aborted disproportionately before they are born who we could call "pre-term internal sex organ feotii" and then does this relate to the ones who are at high risk of rape who we refer to as "those who wear veils" and so on and so on and so on.

The end point of this is that it becomes incredibly difficult to get the full picture. Because you can't say "girls in X are at high risk of being aborted before they are born, being excluded from education when they start their periods, early marriage and domestic violence". Have we lost something here ? I say yes very much so.

“definitions have to change sometimes, particularly when we realise they're insufficient“

Yes of course they do, if it’s something manmade, like “marriage”. But if it’s just something immutable like “dog” or “water” or “stone” or “woman” then no they don’t.

I like the way some people pretend that they don't actually know what man / woman / boy / girl / male / female mean

I know what it used to mean. But now that a woman can have a penis, I'm not so sure. That's why I'm asking. I'm not lying about it or pretending. Is India Willoughby a Real Woman and if so was she a Real Woman from birth?

Extraordinary claimed need extraordinary proof. And “transwomen are women” is an extraordinary claim. As far as I know, there hasn’t been any proof at all- never mind extraordinary proof......l

It still means what it's always meant.
India Willoughby is a transwoman as far as I know.

But now that a woman can have a penis, I'm not so sure.

Women can't have a penis. If you start down this road then there is no way back. You know women have vaginas and men have penises. It will never change. If someone has their penis removed and a neovagina constructed, then they are still a man, just a man with no penis and a neovagina.

Having plastic surgery to make yourself have pointy ears does not make you a Vulcan, it makes you a human with pointy ears. No matter how much in your brain you want to be a Vulcan and how logical you think you are.

Having plastic surgery to make yourself have pointy ears does not make you a Vulcan, it makes you a human with pointy ears.

?????????????

NOW you tell me?

Having plastic surgery to make yourself have pointy ears does not make you a Vulcan, it makes you a human with pointy ears.

?????????????

NOW you tell me?

NOW you tell me?

Yeah I'm real subtle. Sorry.

The problem with the change in language is that it removes and replaces the current well understood meanings of man/woman, male/female, girl/boy, making it very difficult to then talk about issues that affect one sex more than another.

In the short to medium term I can see there are complications that arise from the whole notion of incorporating trans into our world view. Absolutely it makes it more difficult to find the words. Does that mean it isn't worth overcoming that, given that over time it will almost certainly get easier? Not sure.

If you can't address the concerns that people keep bringing up, just ignore them!

Not sure what you're referencing exactly.

Why can't trans be celebrated?

I don't know, I really don't know. But my limited experience with transpeople is that their journey is one of seeking acceptance in a particular identity, and that identity is not one of having been something else first, it's of having always been that thing but with a body which does not correlate. The idea of feeling that way, to me, is beyond imagining. It's beyond logic to me to feel one's body "does not correlate" - because to me my body is me and I am it... But that's me. I can see why celebrating "used to be that, now this" is not the same thing as "is this, has always been this, body either does not correlate or has undergone medical treatment in an attempt to correlate, but still this".

Yes of course they do, if it’s something manmade, like “marriage”. But if it’s just something immutable like “dog” or “water” or “stone” or “woman” then no they don’t.

Of course those things are immutable, but the terms used to describe them are man-made - necessarily man-made. As is all language, categorisation, measurement etc. These terms describe the reality of things, but the descriptors are not real things in and of themselves. (Sorry, got a bit fluffy with my language there, but this is my dissertation subject so it all comes flooding back...)

So you still agree that we need a term for the group that produces eggs, previously known as women / girls / female?

Any suggestions?

How about Cunts?

Certainly I can think of lots of words for us that have the benefit of being things we are called a lot already

Cunts is easy to remember, factual, and already something we get called quite a lot, so.

Any other suggestions?

So we can talk about things that happen to cunty people, as opposed to "girls" who may be any sort of person at all really.

How about Gash?

That's always a nice one.

Hole? I mean we have a front hole now rather than a vagina, so. "Three holes"? While transwomen have 2 holes and a vagina. Maybe a little too league of gentlemen (no tails!!!).

I think it would be good to get some suggestions on the table.

"Non People" is a good one - a bit like non men and describes our situation in quite a few countries around the world succinctly.

Or maybe something made up - Gribbles? Drongies? Splanners?

Any votes?

Of course it won't work because the whole point is that cunty-people-as-a-group must no longer be recognised or discussed. There must always be consideration of the dick. Whatever the new name for cunty people is, there will be outrage if it isn't immediately expanded to include the D.

Rat, please could you define “woman”?

Do you really not have any concerns about men (even those who claim to be women) competing in sports against actual biological women? Do you not have any concerns about male sex offenders who self -identify as women being housed in women’s prisons?

Oh, and why should women on women’s marches not mention vaginas and breasts, Rat?

So you still agree that we need a term for the group that produces eggs, previously known as women / girls / female?

Well I thought female was the word denoting biological status? "Women" to me has a sociological context, "girls" contextualises age, "ladies" makes indirect reference to status maybe... not saying these are definitive by any stretch, just going off the cuff. So you if want to be specific with regards to a body's biology you can say female, no? But if it's referencing someone to be accepted and "treated" by society as a woman, calling them a woman in that context is understandable perhaps. Not without it's problems I concede, but understandable. That's just my take on it.

It is not unless you allow arseholes to dictate to you

Rat you're behind the times. Apparently female is also a word which can be used of trans individuals. I've even seen tweets where transwomen have said that once they've had their neo-vagina constructed, they're "cis" (there, you see, someone wants to use that word...)

No,

Transwomen are also female.

Female is not usable to describe cunty types.

Also, woman means adult human female. The sociological stuff is feminine. That's the expectations around behaviours etc. Woman used to mean grown up person with with a cunt. Nothing more, nothing less.

Also MRAs use "females" to talk about women and girls all the time, they've managed to turn it into a disrespectful term. It makes us sound like animals.

"In this country, the females generally leave the family home after sexual maturity" yes awesome like a gnu or something.

Anyway irrelevant anyway as females is also no longer for cunty ones only.

But my limited experience with transpeople is that their journey is one of seeking acceptance in a particular identity, and that identity is not one of having been something else first, it's of having always been that thing but with a body which does not correlate

In order to do that you have to define what that identity is though.

For example, if a woman is defined as a physical body, there is no way a transwoman can identify as 'always having been that thing'.

Likewise, if a woman is defined because of the way society has made them, again there is no way a transwoman can identify as 'always having that experience'.

If a transwoman could say 'I am a real woman and I have always been a real woman because....' we might be on the way to working it out but they haven't done that and I don't know why.

If transwomen themselves would tell us what they think being a woman is, we might get to the bottom of it.

Rat, please could you define “woman”?

Do you really not have any concerns about men (even those who claim to be women) competing in sports against actual biological women?

Ooh, I had a stab at a definition the other day, although honestly it was just another "off the cuff" attempt at trying to express where I think I currently stand on the issue. Hang on, I'll look for it...

Okay, so the question I asked myself was "if you were obliged to define "women" but we're not allowed to resort to biology, how would you do it?"

Given that women can make whatever choices they like and live any lifestyle they choose I would have to define them by what society places on them that is specific to their being women. So greater discrimination and underrepresentation in higher positions in the workplace. Greater scrutiny over appearance and a more sexualised norm of acceptable presentation. More likely to suffer violence and sexual assaults. Generally lower paid, achievements less recognised or celebrated etc.

Thinking about it if you defined "men" in similar terms, trans women would certainly have more in common with the definition of women than of men, wouldn't they? So perhaps ignoring biology in your definition is what you're all failing to do, I don't know.

Literally copied and pasted that but I guess I'm still in the same place since Saturday so I'll stand by it for now, pending more info.

Do you really not have any concerns about men (even those who claim to be women) competing in sports against actual biological women?

Very keen amateur sportsperson myself but I just haven't experienced the concern around this in real life that is expressed here on MN. Are there many sportswomen speaking out about their concerns?